Chapter 2 Nationalism In India

The First World War, Khilafat And Non-Cooperation

The years following 1919 saw the expansion of the national movement into new areas, encompassing new social groups, and adopting new strategies for struggle. Understanding these developments requires examining the conditions created by the First World War.

The war significantly altered the economic and political landscape. It led to a substantial increase in defence spending, funded through war loans and increased taxes, such as raised customs duties and the introduction of income tax. Prices of goods doubled between 1913 and 1918, causing severe hardship for ordinary people. Villages were pressured to supply soldiers, and forced recruitment in rural areas generated widespread anger.

Adding to the distress, crop failures occurred in many parts of India during 1918-19 and 1920-21, resulting in severe food shortages. This period also saw the outbreak of an influenza epidemic. According to the 1921 census, approximately 12 to 13 million people died due to famines and the epidemic.

People had hoped that the end of the war would alleviate their suffering, but this did not happen. It was at this critical juncture that Mahatma Gandhi emerged, proposing a novel approach to the struggle.

The Idea Of Satyagraha

Mahatma Gandhi returned to India in January 1915 after successfully employing a unique method of mass protest against the racist regime in South Africa. He termed this method 'Satyagraha'.

The core principle of Satyagraha emphasized the power of truth and the necessity of seeking truth. It posited that if the cause was just and the fight was against injustice, physical force was not required to confront the oppressor. A satyagrahi could achieve victory through non-violence, not by seeking revenge or being aggressive, but by appealing to the conscience of the oppressor. The aim was to persuade others, including those in power, to recognize the truth, rather than forcing acceptance through violence. Gandhi firmly believed that through this struggle, truth would inevitably prevail. He considered this 'dharma of non-violence' capable of uniting all Indians.

Upon his return to India, Mahatma Gandhi organized successful satyagraha movements in various locations:

• In 1917, he traveled to Champaran, Bihar, to inspire peasants resisting the oppressive plantation system.
• Also in 1917, he organized a satyagraha to support peasants in the Kheda district of Gujarat, who were affected by crop failure and plague and demanded relaxation of revenue collection.
• In 1918, Mahatma Gandhi went to Ahmedabad to organize a satyagraha movement among cotton mill workers.

The Rowlatt Act

Emboldened by the success of his early satyagrahas, Gandhiji decided in 1919 to launch a nationwide movement against the proposed Rowlatt Act (1919). This Act had been rapidly passed by the Imperial Legislative Council despite strong opposition from Indian members. It granted the government vast powers to suppress political activities and allowed the detention of political prisoners without trial for a period of two years.

Mahatma Gandhi called for non-violent civil disobedience against this unjust legislation, initiating the protest with a hartal (strike) on April 6. Rallies were organized in cities, railway workers went on strike, and shops closed down. The British administration, alarmed by the popular uprising and fearing disruption of essential communications like railways and telegraphs, decided to clamp down on nationalists. Local leaders were arrested in Amritsar, and Mahatma Gandhi was prohibited from entering Delhi.

On April 10, the police in Amritsar opened fire on a peaceful procession, which led to widespread attacks on symbols of British authority such as banks, post offices, and railway stations. Consequently, martial law was imposed, and General Dyer assumed command.

On April 13, the infamous Jallianwalla Bagh incident occurred. A large crowd, some protesting against the new repressive measures and others attending the annual Baisakhi fair, had gathered in the enclosed Jallianwalla Bagh. Many villagers were unaware of the martial law. General Dyer entered the area, blocked the exit points, and ordered his troops to fire on the unarmed crowd, resulting in hundreds of deaths. General Dyer later stated that his intention was to create a 'moral effect' and instill terror and awe in the minds of the satyagrahis.

As news of the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre spread, crowds protested in many North Indian towns. There were strikes, confrontations with the police, and attacks on government buildings. The government responded with brutal repression, aiming to humiliate and terrorize the population. Satyagrahis were forced to crawl on streets, rub their noses on the ground, and perform salaam (salute) to all British officials. People were flogged, and villages (like those near Gujranwala in Punjab) were bombed. Observing the escalating violence, Mahatma Gandhi decided to call off the movement.

Although the Rowlatt satyagraha was widespread, it was primarily confined to cities and towns. Mahatma Gandhi felt the need for a more extensive movement across India, recognizing that such a movement required bringing Hindus and Muslims together. He decided to take up the Khilafat issue as a means to achieve this unity.

The First World War had ended with the defeat of Ottoman Turkey. Rumours circulated that a severe peace treaty would be imposed on the Ottoman emperor, who was the Khalifa, the spiritual leader of the Islamic world. To protect the Khalifa's temporal powers, a Khilafat Committee was formed in Bombay in March 1919. A new generation of Muslim leaders, notably the brothers Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, discussed the possibility of unified mass action on this issue with Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi saw this as a crucial opportunity to unite Muslims under the banner of the national movement. At the Calcutta session of the Congress in September 1920, he persuaded other leaders to launch a Non-Cooperation Movement, advocating for both the Khilafat cause and Swaraj.

Why Non-Cooperation?

In his significant book Hind Swaraj (1909), Mahatma Gandhi asserted that British rule in India was established and maintained because of the cooperation of Indians. He believed that if Indians collectively refused to cooperate, British rule would collapse within a year, leading to Swaraj (self-rule).

Gandhi outlined a strategy for non-cooperation to evolve into a movement, proposing it unfold in stages:

1. Beginning with the surrender of government titles and honours.
2. Followed by a boycott (refusal to associate or participate) of civil services, the army, police, courts, legislative councils, schools, and foreign goods.
3. If the government resorted to repression, a full-scale civil disobedience campaign would be launched.

Throughout the summer of 1920, Mahatma Gandhi and Shaukat Ali traveled extensively across India, gathering popular support for the proposed movement. However, the proposal met with resistance within the Congress. Many leaders were hesitant to boycott the council elections scheduled for November 1920, and they feared that the movement might lead to widespread violence. This resulted in an intense debate and disagreement within the Congress between September and December 1920.

Despite the initial divide, a compromise was eventually reached at the Congress session in Nagpur in December 1920, and the Non-Cooperation programme was formally adopted.

The movement commenced in January 1921. Various social groups joined, each with their own reasons and understanding of 'Swaraj'. The term held different meanings and represented distinct aspirations for different people involved in the movement.

Differing Strands Within The Movement

The Non-Cooperation-Khilafat Movement, which began in January 1921, saw the participation of diverse social groups. While all participants were motivated by the call for Swaraj, their specific objectives and interpretations of the term varied significantly.

The Movement In The Towns

The Non-Cooperation Movement originated with the participation of the middle class in urban areas. Thousands of students withdrew from government-controlled educational institutions, headmasters and teachers resigned from their positions, and lawyers discontinued their legal practices. The council elections were largely boycotted in most provinces, except in Madras. Here, the Justice Party, which represented non-Brahmans, chose to contest the elections, viewing participation in the council as a means to gain power, which was traditionally dominated by Brahmans.

The economic impact of the movement in towns was particularly striking. Foreign goods were widely boycotted, liquor shops were picketed (a form of protest where people block access), and large quantities of foreign cloth were burned in public bonfires. The value of imported foreign cloth dropped dramatically from ₹102 crore to ₹57 crore between 1921 and 1922. Merchants and traders in many places refused to deal in foreign goods or provide finance for foreign trade. As the boycott gained momentum and people increasingly wore Indian-made clothes, the production of textiles in Indian mills and handlooms witnessed a significant increase.

However, the movement in urban centres gradually lost momentum for several reasons. Hand-spun Khadi cloth was often more expensive than mill-produced foreign cloth, making it unaffordable for poorer people for an extended period. Similarly, the boycott of British institutions presented a challenge. The movement needed viable alternative Indian institutions to replace the British ones, such as schools and courts. The establishment of these alternative institutions was slow. Consequently, students, teachers, and lawyers gradually began returning to their former government-affiliated schools and courts.

Rebellion In The Countryside

From the urban centres, the Non-Cooperation Movement extended into rural areas, integrating with the existing struggles of peasants and tribal communities that had been developing in various parts of India after the First World War.

In Awadh, the peasant movement was led by Baba Ramchandra, a sanyasi who had previously worked as an indentured labourer in Fiji. The movement in Awadh was primarily directed against the talukdars (landlords) who imposed excessively high rents and various other fees (cesses) on the peasants. Peasants were forced to perform begar (labour without payment) on landlords' farms. As tenants, they lacked security of tenure and were frequently evicted, preventing them from establishing any rights over the land they cultivated. The demands of the peasant movement included a reduction in revenue payments, the abolition of begar, and the social boycott of oppressive landlords. In several places, panchayats organized 'nai-dhobi bandhs', boycotting the services of barbers and washermen to the landlords.

Jawaharlal Nehru began visiting villages in Awadh in June 1920 to understand the peasants' grievances. By October, the Oudh Kisan Sabha was established, headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, Baba Ramchandra, and others. Within a month, the organisation had set up over 300 branches in the region's villages. When the Non-Cooperation Movement began the following year, the Congress attempted to incorporate the Awadh peasant struggle into the broader national movement.

However, the peasant movement evolved in ways that were not entirely approved by the Congress leadership. As the movement intensified in 1921, attacks were made on the houses of talukdars and merchants, bazaars were looted, and grain hoards were seized. In many instances, local leaders informed the peasants that Mahatma Gandhi had declared that no taxes were to be paid and that land would be redistributed among the poor. The name of the Mahatma was frequently invoked to legitimize these actions and aspirations, sometimes misinterpreting his core message.

Tribal peasants interpreted the messages of Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of Swaraj in their own distinct ways. In the Gudem Hills of Andhra Pradesh, a militant guerrilla movement gained momentum in the early 1920s. This form of struggle was not aligned with the non-violent approach advocated by the Congress. The revolt was triggered by colonial government policies that closed large forest areas, prohibiting tribal people from grazing cattle or collecting forest produce like fuelwood and fruits. This severely impacted their livelihoods and violated their traditional rights. The situation escalated when the government compelled them to perform begar for road construction.

The leader who emerged in this region was an intriguing figure named Alluri Sitaram Raju. Raju claimed to possess special powers, including accurate astrological predictions, the ability to heal people, and even immunity to bullet wounds. His followers were captivated by his charisma and declared him an incarnation of God. Raju spoke about the greatness of Mahatma Gandhi, stating he was inspired by the Non-Cooperation Movement and encouraging people to wear khadi and abstain from alcohol. However, he also maintained that India's liberation could only be achieved through the use of force, contrary to Gandhi's principle of non-violence. The Gudem rebels attacked police stations, attempted to assassinate British officials, and engaged in guerrilla warfare to achieve Swaraj. Raju was captured and executed in 1924, and over time, he became a local folk hero.

Swaraj In The Plantations

Workers, particularly those in plantations, also had their own understanding of Mahatma Gandhi and the concept of Swaraj. For plantation workers in Assam, freedom meant the ability to move freely both within and outside the restricted areas where they were confined for work. It also signified the right to maintain a connection with their home villages from which they had been brought.

Under the Inland Emigration Act of 1859, plantation workers were not permitted to leave the tea gardens without explicit permission, and such permission was rarely granted. When these workers learned about the Non-Cooperation Movement, thousands defied the authorities, left the plantations, and attempted to return to their villages. They believed that 'Gandhi Raj' was imminent and that they would all be allocated land in their home areas. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach their destinations. Stranded on the way due to a railway and steamer strike, they were apprehended by the police and brutally beaten.

The interpretations of Swaraj held by these various movements (peasants, tribals, plantation workers) were not strictly defined by the official Congress programme. They understood Swaraj in their own terms, often imagining it as an end to all their suffering and hardship. However, when tribal groups chanted Gandhi's name or raised slogans like 'Swatantra Bharat' (Independent India), they were emotionally connecting themselves to a wider, all-India agitation. Their actions in the name of Mahatma Gandhi or their efforts to link their local struggles to that of the Congress signified an identification with a national movement that extended beyond their immediate regional boundaries.

Towards Civil Disobedience

In February 1922, Mahatma Gandhi made the decision to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement. He felt that the movement had become violent in many areas, citing incidents like Chauri Chaura, and that the satyagrahis needed better training before they could participate effectively in large-scale struggles.

Within the Congress, some leaders were weary of mass agitations and wished to engage in politics by participating in elections to the provincial councils. These councils had been established under the Government of India Act of 1919. Leaders like C. R. Das and Motilal Nehru formed the Swaraj Party within the Congress specifically to advocate for a return to council politics. They believed it was important to oppose British policies from within the councils, push for reforms, and expose the limitations of these seemingly democratic bodies. In contrast, younger leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose pressed for more radical mass campaigns and the demand for complete independence.

In the late 1920s, Indian politics was significantly influenced by two key factors. Firstly, the impact of the worldwide economic depression. Agricultural prices started declining from 1926 and collapsed after 1930. The reduced demand for agricultural goods and a fall in exports made it extremely difficult for peasants to sell their produce and pay revenue. By 1930, the rural areas were in a state of turmoil.

Secondly, against this backdrop of economic hardship, the new Conservative (Tory) government in Britain appointed a Statutory Commission under Sir John Simon. This commission was formed in response to the nationalist movement to examine the constitutional system in India and propose changes. However, the crucial problem was that the commission had **no Indian members**; it was composed entirely of British officials.

When the Simon Commission arrived in India in 1928, it was met with widespread protests and the slogan ‘Go back Simon’. Political parties, including the Congress and the Muslim League, participated in these demonstrations. In an attempt to placate the Indian leadership, the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, announced a vague offer of ‘dominion status’ for India in an unspecified future and proposed a Round Table Conference to discuss a future constitution (October 1929). This offer, however, did not satisfy the Congress leaders.

The radical faction within the Congress, led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose, became more assertive in their demands. The liberals and moderates, who were content with a constitutional system within the British dominion framework, gradually lost their influence. In December 1929, at the Lahore Congress session presided over by Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress officially adopted the demand for ‘Purna Swaraj’ or full independence for India. It was decided that January 26, 1930, would be observed as 'Independence Day', with people taking a pledge to strive for complete independence. However, these celebrations did not attract widespread attention. Recognizing this, Mahatma Gandhi sought a way to connect the abstract goal of freedom with concrete, everyday issues.

The Salt March And The Civil Disobedience Movement

Mahatma Gandhi identified salt as a potent symbol that could unite the entire nation. Salt was consumed by everyone, rich and poor alike, and was an essential food item. Gandhi argued that the tax on salt and the government's monopoly over its production revealed the most oppressive face of British rule.

On January 31, 1930, he sent a letter to Viceroy Irwin listing eleven demands. These included demands of general interest as well as specific demands representing different classes, from industrialists to peasants. The aim was to make the demands broad enough to resonate with various segments of Indian society and unite them in a common campaign. The most significant demand was the abolition of the salt tax.

Gandhi's letter served as an ultimatum, stating that if the demands were not met by March 11, the Congress would launch a civil disobedience campaign. Viceroy Irwin was unwilling to negotiate. Consequently, Mahatma Gandhi commenced his renowned Salt March, accompanied by 78 of his trusted volunteers. The march covered a distance of over 240 miles, starting from Gandhi's ashram in Sabarmati and ending at the coastal town of Dandi in Gujarat. The volunteers walked for 24 days, covering approximately 10 miles per day. Thousands of people gathered to listen to Mahatma Gandhi along the route; he spoke about the meaning of Swaraj and urged them to peacefully defy the British.

On April 6, Gandhi reached Dandi and ceremonially violated the law by producing salt from boiling sea water. This action marked the formal beginning of the Civil Disobedience Movement.

This movement differed significantly from the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921-22. In addition to refusing cooperation with the British, people were now explicitly asked to break colonial laws. Thousands across the country violated the salt law, manufactured salt, and demonstrated outside government salt factories. As the movement spread, foreign cloth was boycotted, and liquor shops were picketed. Peasants refused to pay revenue and village security taxes (chaukidari taxes), village officials resigned, and in many forested areas, people violated forest laws by entering Reserved Forests to collect wood and graze cattle.

The colonial government, concerned by these developments, began arresting Congress leaders. This led to violent clashes in several places. When Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a devout follower of Mahatma Gandhi, was arrested in April 1930, angry crowds protested in Peshawar, facing armoured cars and police firing, resulting in many deaths. A month later, following Mahatma Gandhi's arrest, industrial workers in Sholapur attacked government structures symbolizing British authority, including police posts, municipal buildings, law courts, and railway stations. A frightened government responded with brutal repression, attacking peaceful satyagrahis, beating women and children, and arresting approximately 100,000 people.

In response to the violence and repression, Mahatma Gandhi decided once again to call off the movement. He entered into a pact with Viceroy Irwin on March 5, 1931, known as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Under this agreement, Gandhi consented to participate in the Second Round Table Conference in London (the Congress had boycotted the first one), and the government agreed to release political prisoners.

Gandhi attended the conference in London in December 1931, but the negotiations were unsuccessful, and he returned disappointed. Back in India, he found that the government had initiated a new phase of repression. Ghaffar Khan and Jawaharlal Nehru were imprisoned, the Congress had been declared an illegal organization, and various restrictions were imposed on meetings, demonstrations, and boycotts. With considerable apprehension, Mahatma Gandhi relaunched the Civil Disobedience Movement. The movement continued for over a year but gradually lost its momentum by 1934.

How Participants Saw The Movement

Examining the different social groups that participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement reveals varied motivations and ideas about Swaraj.

• Rich Peasants: Communities like the Patidars of Gujarat and the Jats of Uttar Pradesh were active supporters. As cultivators of commercial crops, they were severely impacted by the economic depression and falling prices, making it impossible to pay the government's high revenue demands. Their resentment grew when the government refused to lower revenue rates. These affluent peasants enthusiastically joined the movement, organizing their communities and sometimes compelling reluctant members to participate in boycott programmes. For them, the fight for Swaraj meant a struggle against high revenue demands. However, they were deeply dissatisfied when the movement was suspended in 1931 without revenue rates being revised. Consequently, many refused to rejoin when the movement was relaunched in 1932.
• Poorer Peasantry: Small tenants cultivating rented land were interested not just in lower revenue but also in the remission of unpaid rent owed to landlords. As the Depression continued, their cash incomes dwindled, making rent payments difficult. They often joined more radical movements, sometimes led by Socialists and Communists. The Congress was cautious about supporting 'no rent' campaigns in most areas, fearing it would upset rich peasants and landlords. This left the relationship between poor peasants and the Congress somewhat uncertain.
• Business Classes: Indian merchants and industrialists, who had profited significantly during World War I, became powerful. Seeking to expand their businesses, they opposed colonial policies that restricted economic activities. They demanded protection against foreign imports and a favourable rupee-sterling exchange rate. They formed organizations like the Indian Industrial and Commercial Congress (1920) and the Federation of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) in 1927, led by prominent figures like Purshottamdas Thakurdas and G. D. Birla. Initially, they supported the Civil Disobedience Movement, providing financial aid and boycotting foreign goods. For them, Swaraj meant the removal of colonial constraints on business and the freedom for trade and industry to thrive. However, after the failure of the Round Table Conference, their enthusiasm waned. They became concerned about the rise of militant activities, prolonged business disruptions, and the increasing influence of socialism among younger Congress members.
• Industrial Working Classes: Their participation in the Civil Disobedience Movement was not large-scale, except in the Nagpur region. As industrialists grew closer to the Congress, workers generally remained distant. Nevertheless, some workers did participate, selectively adopting aspects of the Gandhian programme, such as the boycott of foreign goods, within their own struggles for better wages and working conditions. Strikes by railway workers occurred in 1930 and dockworkers in 1932. In 1930, thousands of workers in Chotanagpur tin mines wore Gandhi caps and joined protests and boycotts. However, the Congress was reluctant to fully incorporate workers' specific demands into its programme of struggle, fearing it would alienate industrialists and weaken the united anti-imperial front.
• Women: A significant feature of the movement was the large-scale participation of women. Thousands, inspired by Gandhi's call, came out of their homes to join the Salt March, participate in protest marches, manufacture salt, and picket foreign cloth and liquor shops. Many faced imprisonment. In urban areas, women from high-caste families were prominent, while in rural areas, they came from wealthy peasant households. Moved by Gandhi, they began to see service to the nation as a sacred duty. However, despite this increased public involvement, their position in society was not necessarily viewed differently; Gandhi believed women's primary duty was home and family. The Congress was also hesitant to grant women positions of authority within the organization, primarily seeking their symbolic participation.

The Limits Of Civil Disobedience

Not all social groups were fully receptive to the abstract concept of Swaraj as interpreted by the Congress leadership. One such group was the community referred to as 'untouchables', who, from around the 1930s, began identifying themselves as Dalit, meaning 'oppressed'.

For a long time, the Congress had largely overlooked the Dalits, apprehensive of alienating the sanatanis (conservative high-caste Hindus). However, Mahatma Gandhi emphasized the crucial importance of eradicating untouchability, stating that Swaraj would not be achieved for a century if this practice persisted. He coined the term 'harijan' (children of God) for the 'untouchables' and organized satyagrahas to ensure their access to temples, public wells, tanks, roads, and schools. Gandhi personally engaged in cleaning toilets to dignify the work of sweepers (bhangi) and urged upper castes to change their attitudes and abandon the 'sin of untouchability'.

Many Dalit leaders, however, favoured a different political approach to address their community's problems. They started organizing themselves, notably through the Depressed Classes Association founded by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in 1930. Their demands included reserved seats in educational institutions and separate electorates, which would allow Dalits to elect their own representatives to legislative councils. They believed that gaining political power would be the key to overcoming their social disadvantages. Consequently, Dalit participation in the Civil Disobedience Movement was limited, particularly in regions like Maharashtra and Nagpur where their organizations were strong.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clashed with Mahatma Gandhi during the Second Round Table Conference by pressing for separate electorates for Dalits. When the British government agreed to Ambedkar's demand, Gandhi began a fast unto death, believing that separate electorates would impede the process of integrating Dalits into mainstream society. Eventually, Ambedkar accepted Gandhi's viewpoint, leading to the signing of the Poona Pact in September 1932. This pact granted the Depressed Classes (later known as Scheduled Castes) reserved seats in provincial and central legislative councils, but stipulated that they would be elected by the general electorate. Despite this agreement, the Dalit movement remained somewhat cautious and apprehensive of the Congress-led national movement.

Some Muslim political organizations in India also responded coolly to the Civil Disobedience Movement. Following the decline of the Non-Cooperation-Khilafat Movement, a significant number of Muslims felt increasingly disconnected from the Congress. From the mid-1920s onwards, the Congress was perceived by some as being more aligned with Hindu religious nationalist groups like the Hindu Mahasabha. As relations between Hindus and Muslims deteriorated, both communities began organizing religious processions with fervent displays, often leading to communal clashes and riots in various cities. Each incident of riot further widened the rift between the two communities.

The Congress and the Muslim League made efforts to reconcile and form an alliance, and by 1927, unity seemed possible. However, major disagreements arose over the issue of representation in the future elected assemblies. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a leader of the Muslim League, was willing to abandon the demand for separate electorates if Muslims were guaranteed reserved seats in the Central Assembly and given representation proportional to their population in Muslim-majority provinces like Bengal and Punjab. Negotiations continued but ultimately failed to resolve the issue at the All Parties Conference in 1928, largely due to strong opposition to any compromise from M.R. Jayakar of the Hindu Mahasabha.

Consequently, when the Civil Disobedience Movement was launched, there was an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and mistrust between Hindu and Muslim communities. Alienated from the Congress, large sections of Muslims did not respond enthusiastically to the call for a united struggle. Many Muslim leaders and intellectuals voiced concerns about the status of Muslims as a minority in India, fearing that their distinct culture and identity could be suppressed under the dominance of a Hindu majority.

The Sense Of Collective Belonging

The feeling of nationalism grows when people believe they belong to the same nation and discover elements that unify them. But how did this idea of a shared nation become a reality in the minds of people from diverse communities, regions, and language groups? This sense of collective belonging emerged partly from participating in united struggles against colonial rule.

However, cultural processes also played a crucial role in capturing people's imagination and fostering nationalism. History, fictional narratives, folklore, songs, popular illustrations, and national symbols all contributed to shaping this national identity.

The identity of a nation is often visually represented by a figure or image, which helps people connect with the idea of the nation. In 20th-century India, the image of Bharat Mata (Mother India) became the visual representation of the Indian nation. The first image of Bharat Mata was created by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. In the 1870s, he composed the hymn 'Vande Mataram' as an ode to the motherland. This hymn was later included in his novel Anandamath and became widely popular during the Swadeshi movement in Bengal.

Inspired by the Swadeshi movement, Abanindranath Tagore painted his famous image of Bharat Mata in 1905. In this painting, Bharat Mata is depicted as a serene, composed, divine, and spiritual ascetic figure. She is shown dispensing learning, food, and clothing, with a mala in one hand highlighting her ascetic nature. Like Ravi Varma before him, Abanindranath Tagore sought to develop a distinctively Indian painting style.

Over time, the image of Bharat Mata took on various forms in popular prints and paintings by different artists (e.g., shown with a trishul, a lion, and an elephant as symbols of power). Devotion to this mother figure came to be regarded as a demonstration of one's nationalism.

Ideas of nationalism were also promoted through the revival of Indian folklore. In the late nineteenth century, nationalists began documenting folk tales narrated by bards and toured villages to collect folk songs and legends. They believed these traditions accurately represented India's traditional culture, which they felt had been harmed by external influences. Preserving this folk heritage was considered crucial for rediscovering national identity and instilling pride in India's past.

In Bengal, Rabindranath Tagore personally collected ballads, nursery rhymes, and myths, spearheading the folk revival movement. In Madras, Natesa Sastri published a vast four-volume collection of Tamil folk tales, titled `The Folklore of Southern India`. He considered folklore to be national literature, describing it as "the most trustworthy manifestation of people's real thoughts and characteristics".

As the national movement progressed, leaders increasingly recognized the power of symbols and icons in uniting people and inspiring nationalist sentiment. During the Swadeshi movement in Bengal, a tricolour flag (red, green, and yellow) was designed. It featured eight lotus flowers representing the eight provinces of British India and a crescent moon symbolizing Hindu-Muslim unity. By 1921, Mahatma Gandhi had designed the Swaraj flag, a tricolour (red, green, and white) with a spinning wheel in the centre, embodying the Gandhian ideal of self-help. Carrying and holding this flag aloft during marches became a potent symbol of defiance against British rule.

Reinterpreting history was another method used to cultivate nationalist feelings. By the late nineteenth century, many Indians felt that to instill national pride, Indian history needed to be viewed differently. The British often portrayed Indians as backward and incapable of self-governance. In response, Indian scholars and nationalists delved into the past to highlight India's great achievements. They wrote about the glorious era in ancient times when arts, architecture, science, mathematics, religion, culture, law, philosophy, crafts, and trade flourished. This period, in their narrative, was followed by a phase of decline leading to colonization. These nationalist histories aimed to inspire readers to take pride in India's past glories and motivate them to fight against the oppressive conditions under British rule.

However, these efforts to create a unified national identity were not without difficulties. When the past being celebrated was predominantly Hindu, or when the symbols and images were drawn from Hindu religious traditions, people from other communities sometimes felt excluded or alienated.

Quit India Movement

The failure of the Cripps Mission and the challenging circumstances of World War II generated significant discontent in India. This situation prompted Mahatma Gandhi to launch a mass movement demanding the complete withdrawal of the British from the country.

On July 14, 1942, the Congress Working Committee, meeting in Wardha, passed the historic 'Quit India' resolution, calling for the immediate transfer of power to Indian hands and demanding the British 'Quit India'. On August 8, 1942, the All India Congress Committee meeting in Bombay endorsed this resolution, calling for a widespread non-violent mass struggle across the country. It was on this occasion that Gandhi delivered his famous 'Do or Die' speech, urging Indians to act as if they were free and fight for independence or die trying.

The call for 'Quit India' received an overwhelming response, virtually paralyzing the state machinery in large parts of the country as people spontaneously engaged in the movement. Activities included holding hartals, demonstrations, and processions accompanied by patriotic songs and slogans. The movement truly became a mass movement, drawing in thousands of ordinary people, including students, workers, and peasants.

It also saw active participation from various leaders like Jayprakash Narayan, Aruna Asaf Ali, and Ram Manohar Lohia, as well as many women freedom fighters such as Matangini Hazra in Bengal, Kanaklata Barua in Assam, and Rama Devi in Odisha. The British government responded with considerable force, but it took them over a year to suppress the movement entirely.